Section
6 ---Explanation--Expression "Uncultivated land"---Scope of--Land
capable of cultivation but not culti- vated continuosly for 3 .years prior to
the enforcement of the Act--Held "uncultivated laird" and vested in
the State.

HEAD NOTE:

The
appellants were tenants of certain lands which formed part of a Taluqdari
Estate. These lands though cul- tivable were not cultivated for a continuous
period of 3 years prior to the coming into Iorce of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure
Abolition Act, 1949.

In the
tenant's appeal to this Court, on the question whether these lands were
uncultivated lands within the meaning of Section 6 of the 1949 Act and thus
became vested in the State:

Dismissing
the appeals, this Court,

HELD:
1. The lands in question are clearly covered by the definition of the
expression "uncultivated land" as set out in the Explanation to
Section 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949. [500-F].

1.1
Even according to the appellants themselves, the lands were under cultivation
for some time prior to the coming into force of the said Act and hence it could
not be said that they were uncultivable lands. They were in fact lands which
were capable of cultivation and as a matter of fact had been subjected to
cultivation for some-time but were not cultivated 1or continuous period of
three years prior to the coming into force of the Act. Accordingly the lands
must be regarded as "uncultivated lands" for the purposes of Section
6 of the Act and must be deemed to be vested in the State Government. [500 E-F,
499-C].

From
the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.1978 of the Gujarat High Court in Letters
Patent Appeal Nos. 54, 52, 53, 55 of 1973.

B. Datta,
J.P. Pathak and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants.

R.N. Sachthey,
Bimal Roy Jad and Anip Sachthey for the Respondent.

The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. These are the appeals by
special leave from a common judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High
Court disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 52 to 55 of 1973 and also
Letters Patent Appeal No. 50 of 1973. It is a common ground that the appellants
are the tenants of certain lands which form part of the estate or wanta of a Taluqdar.

The
question is whether the provisions of Section 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure
Abolition Act, 1949, are applicable to the lands in question, and whether under
the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949, which came into effect from
15th August, 1950, the said lands became vested in the State and all rights in
the said land held by the Taluqdar became the property of the Government. Under
the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act, inter alia, all uncultivated lands
excluding the land used for building and other non- agricultural purposes, vest
in the State. Section 6 of the Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949,
runs as fol- lows: - "All public roads, lanes and paths, the bridges,
ditches, dikes and fences on, or beside, the same. the bed of the sea and of harbours,
creeks below high water mark, and of rivers, streams, nailas, lakes, wells and
tanks, and all canals, and water courses, and all standing and flowing water,
all unbuilt village site lands, all waste lands and all uncultivated lands
(excluding lands used for building or other non-agricultural purposes), which
are not situate within the limits of the wantas as belonging to a taluqdar in a
taluq- dari estate shall except in so far as any rights of any person other
than the taluqdar may be established in and over the same and except as may
otherwise be provided by any law for the time being in force, vest in and shall
be deemed to be, with all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto,
the property of the Government and all rights held by a taluqdar in such
property shall be deemed to have been extinguished and it shall be lawful for
the Collector, subject to the 499 general or special orders of the Commis- sioner,
to dispose them of as he deems fit, subject always to the rights of way and of
other rights of the public or of individuals legally subsisting.

Explanation:
For the purposes of this section, land shall be deemed to be unculti- vated, if
it has not been cultivated for a continuous period of three years immediately
before the date on which this Act comes into force." The question is
whether for the purposes of this section the lands in question were
uncultivated lands. It is an admitted position that the lands were leased by
the Taluqdar to the tenants. There is also a clear and categorical find- ing of
facts that these lands had remained uncultivated for a period of 3 years
immediately before the said Act came into force. Prima facie it would appear
that in view of the said explanation to section 6 the lands must be regarded as
uncultivated lands for the purposes of section 6 of the said Act and must be
deemed to be vested in Government. Learned Counsel for the appellants, however,
contended that as the lands had been put to cultivation earlier for some time
even though not cultivated for continuous three years prior to vesting they
cannot be regarded as uncultivated lands.

According
to learned Counsel, if the land is capable of being cultivated, it cannot be
treated as uncultivated land within the meaning of section 6. He relied on a
decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal reported in [1980] 1 SCR page 233. Our
attention has been drawn to the observation made at page 239 of the said re-
port. After setting out the provision of Section 6 it has been observed, as
follows:

"On
a fair reading of the section, it would be evident that the vesting is in
respect of properties which could be put to public use.

It
leaves the private properties of the taluq- dar untouched. The legislative
intent is manifested by clear enumeration of certain specific properties not
situate within the wantas of a taluqdar. It begins by specifying 'All public
roads, lanes, paths, bridges etc.' and ends up with 'all village site lands,
all waste lands and all uncultivated lands', and these being public properties
situate in a taluqdar's estate must necessarily vest in the Government because
they are meant for public use. In spite of vesting of such property in the
Government, however, the conferral of the rights of an occupant on a taluqdar
under section 5(1)(b) in respect of the lands in his actual possession, is
saved.

Pausing
there, it is fair to observe that the words in parenthesis 'excluding lands
used for building or other non-agricultural 500 purposes', exemplify the
intention of the legislature not to deprive a taluqdar of such land, even
though such property is uncultivated land, due to its inherent charac- ter as
well as by reason of the Explana- tion.

It is,
therefore, evident that the determina- tion of the question whether a
particular category of property belonging to a taluqdar in a taluqdan estate is
vested in the Govern- ment or not, and the determination of the question
whether the rights held by a taluqdar in such property shall be deemed to have
been extinguished or not, will depend upon the category of that property. The
expression 'all waste lands' has been joined by conjunctive 'and' with the
expression 'all uncultivated lands'. They, therefore, indicate two distinct
types of land. If the legislature had intended that the aforesaid expression
should indicate one class of lands, the expression rather would have been 'all
waste and uncultivated lands' as against the expression 'all waste lands and
all uncultivated lands'. Here we have, therefore, two distinct categories of proporties
viz. (1) waste lands, and (2) uncultivated lands. The contention that the
grass-lands on hilly tracts which are incapa- ble of cultivation were 'waste
lands' or 'uncultivated lands' within the meaning of section 6 cannot be accepted
." The said decision of this Court and the observation relied on by the
learned Counsel do not come in the aid of the contention made by the learned
Counsel for the appel- lants. Even according to the appellants themselves, the
lands were under cultivation for some time prior to the coming into force of
the said Act and hence, it could not be said that they were uncultivable lands.
They were in fact, lands which were capable of cultivation and as a matter of
fact subjected to cultivation for some time but, which as found by the High
Court were not cultivated for continuous period of three years prior to the
coming into force of the said Act. In these circumstances, the said lands are
clearly covered by the definition of the expression "uncultivated
land" as set out in the Explanation to section 6. As the said lands were
uncultivated lands within the meaning of section 6, they must be deemed to have
been vested in the Government and the contention of the appellants to the
contrary must be rejected.

In the
result, there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed. There will,
however, be no order as to costs.